This commenter at God’s Politics made me laugh, and cry, and fume, and…
Whatever our sect of Christianity, we’re all supposed to follow our conscience, and if we think leaders are wrong, we are supposed to speak up.
In my view…
The most well known example I can think of was Martin Luther. He was a Catholic priest who pointed out that for the Vatican to be selling indulgences and other practices in place at that time were wrong. My wild guess is that he was not the only one to see the error in that practice. Others on this blog have pointed out that some leaders of Islam treat women unjustly. In my view, the Catholic church is treating women unjustly, and to its own detriment.
The issue of expenditures that could be provided to those who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, and “naked” for church building “sanctuary spaces” that are used once a week goes beyond the Catholic church and beyond Christianity. It accounts for a substantial percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches, synagoges, mosques, temples, and so on. I don’t think Jesus would approve. I’m less familiar with Abraham and Moses and Mohammed and Budda and others, but from what little I understand of their guidance for living a good life, I think they would disapprove.
In my view…
Those who assist persons who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, “naked” will be saved and those who do not provide that assistance will not be saved. Those who do those charities to persons in those circumstances do them for God and to God. The sum and substance of what God expects of us is that we love God and love our neighbor. In my view, that is what God expects us to do.
In my view…
I had to respond, I couldn’t resist. I got so into it that my comment was the length of a post. So it now is a post:
_____________________________
What does God expect from us? More than loving God and loving our neighbor in the modern feel-good sense. Jesus said that to love God is the greatest command. To love others is second and subordinate to the first command. It seems that those who push the social gospel ignore the true meaning of loving God, and instead teach that loving your neighbor is loving God. But loving God means committing wholly to him. Jesus said that if our love for our own families doesn’t seem like hate in comparison to our love for him, we have no place in the kingdom.
Loving your neighbor is more than just allowing or helping them do whatever they want. If you truly love someone you will want them to live a Scriptural, Spirit-filled life. You will clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but you won’t leave it at that…you’ll point them to the cross. When you see a brother or sister in error, you’ll correct them. And when you sense that they’re beginning to be “conformed to the pattern of this world”, you’ll confront them. That’s what it is to love your neighbor.
The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 seems to be the basis of your statements here. You erroneously claim that it is “the sum and substance of what God expects of us”. To say that ignores most of the New Testament. I can do that too. Based on the Parable of the Talents, directly preceding, all I have to do to get into heaven is make money. What do you think of that? Or, according to the Parable of the Ten Virgins (again, directly preceding the last), I just have to be prepared and vigilant. I can even say, “Hey, if I give you some of mine I won’t make it!” Hording goods and being stingy can get me into heaven.
It’s clear that taking one parable out of it’s context is bad theology. Yes, Jesus makes many statements about the poor (Wallis says 2000 verses, for now I’ll take him at his word). But there’s an entire Gospel written with the sole purpose of getting us to believe…something the social gospel ignores.
There are also a great many verses about holiness and righteousness. They’re in the Gospels (”For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…”), and in Paul’s epistles (”Be holy as your heavenly father is holy…”), and throughout the OT. Our service, our benevolence, our love for our neighbor, means nothing if it is not based in our acceptance and reflection of God’s holiness.
One of the ways we reflect that holiness, is to acknowledge the roles that God clearly set out for men and women. I’m sure you will disagree with my view of gender roles, so I won’t argue it with you. Suffice it to say that an objective view of Scripture and anthropology clearly shows that men were meant to lead. It is not simply a patriarchal conspiracy.
Finally, as a church employee it ticks me off when people act like the church is only used one day a week. Yes the sanctuary is typically used one day a week, except during Lent at my church. But on the other six days the lights and the heat are off, so there’s no maintenance cost associated with it. The rest of the church is bustling 7 days and nights a week…all year.On top of that, building costs (utilities, repairs, maintenance, mortgage, etc.) are less than 5% of our contribution. I can’t say that is the same for every church, but it’s true here. If you’re going to say something is a “substantial percentage”, get some real numbers, because 5% is in no way substantial.
And are you seriously comparing the way many Muslims mistreat women to the exclusion of women from the priesthood and diaconate? Are there rooms in Catholic churches where the women get knocked around for not wearing their rosaries? I bet not. You sound like Charlize Theron saying that there is as much a problem with freedom of speech in the US as in Cuba. Are you for real? _______________________
While I was writing this, he posted again in response to someone else:
In a more perfect world, women would not have to repeatedly try to push a stone up a hill (that males never encounter). And parishoners would not have to be inconvenienced by the obstinancy of a male dominated group of decision makers. If the trend persists, it is possible that poorly utilized, antiquated buildings will be abandoned and the cost savings might be transferred to support poor persons.
It is possible… whether it is likely is another story… I can hope… and my hope is that women will be ordained and that a greater percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches will instead go to support of poor persons… here and abroad…
Best wishes…
Why would you push a stone up a hill? And why assume that in a “more perfect world” women would still be pursuing societal leadership roles? I think that in a more perfect world, men and women would exist in a harmony that allowed men to led and women to submit in a Biblical manner without anyone thinking that men were “oppressing” or “overpowering” women. It would be the perfect picture of Christ and the church from Ephesians. I think of this, now that I’ve invoked that image: Man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. Should the church ever think of trying to lead Christ? Uhh…no. That’s a new thought, so don’t put too much stock in it.
Man, some people…
Technorati Tags: benevolence, catholic, christ, christian, Church, controversy, deacons, female, gender_roles, goats, gods_politics, gospel, jesus, leadership, love_your_neighbor, new_testament, ordination, preistesses, priesthood, progressive_christianity, sheep, social_gospel, talents, ten_virgins, Theology, women
Blogs4God
While I’m not catholic and am fairly anti-catholic in my beliefs, I agree with you here. There are gender roles outlined clearly in scripture and to ignore this is to not accept the whole of the teaching of scripture.